Nikon D4 overview

Like its predecessor, the Nikon D4 looks as if it’s going to be an incredibly impressive camera. Nikon has looked to its professional user-base and tried to work out what it needed to add or adjust on a camera that just a couple of years ago represented the best they were capable of. The result is a camera with few big changes but a extensive series of small improvements.

The biggest change is, of course, the improvement in video capabilities. Given the increasing demand for video footage from professional photographers, and the incredible success of Canon’s 5D Mark II in the professional video market, it was inevitable that Nikon’s pro flagship would need to offer a more compelling feature set than the existing models.

Beyond this, the changes to the stills-shooting specifications are relatively modest – there’s a higher-resolution, 16.2MP, full-frame CMOS sensor and the ability to shoot at 10 frames per second with autofocus, but that’s about it. The new chip's capability has prompted Nikon to offer an ISO range from 100-12,800 that can then be extended to 50 – 204,800 (Hi4). The significant changes, beyond video, are a profusion of smaller tweaks, additions and improvements to what was already a well worked-out camera. These include a carbon fiber shutter rated to 400,000 actuations that can fire at up to 1/8000th of a second.

The biggest technical changes are the addition of a 91,000 pixel ‘metering’ sensor, replacing the 1005 pixel example used up until now. This sensor is used for much more than just metering, playing a key role in subject tracking, white balance and 'Active D-lighting' (a trick Canon seems impressed with, given the appearance of a similar system in the 1DX). The higher-resolution sensor allows the camera to offer face detection when shooting through the optical viewfinder.

Then there are the ergonomic changes to the camera’s body. Again like Canon’s 1DX, moves have been made to make the ergonomics of portrait-orientation shooting more closely resemble those of shooting in landscape format. The camera no longer features a dedicated AFL button, instead gaining push-button joysticks for both the vertical and landscape shooting orientations. An additional rubberized lump has also been added to provide a better grip in the vertical orientation and an additional function button added next to the vertical shutter button.

1920x1080 60p video is still "ahead of the curve," in terms of shareability. What share of the public has AVCHD2 capable Blu-ray players or 28mbps web connections?

For the price, one might have expected the D4 to introduce 4k video to the DSLR world, at least for short takes. That also exceeds existing display norms, but would be great for cropping, which remains a privilege of still photography or REDs.

Good to see Nikon introduce video cropping for telephoto while retaining Full HD. Might buyers of the T4i or D5200 get the same treat for a fraction of the cost?

"What share of the public has AVCHD2 capable Blu-ray players or 28mbps web connections?"

No clue, but then again, that has got probably nothing to do with the recording specs of the Nikon D4 DSLR.

60fps shooting is not strictly for slow-motion effects any more, in fact, this year will mark the release of some cinematic features that were shot at 48fps and will play out in cinemas also at 48fps. High frame rate cinema, the other emerging standard is the 60fps shooting and 60fps projection acquisition/projection frame rate.

4K video would have clinched the deal for most videographers in getting the D4. But as things stand now, that is less certain. Maxing out at 1080p30 is a bad sign.

I cannot seem to ascertain if Nikon is keeping with its "on the fly" permanent custom menu changes, or if the custom settings can finally be programmed so they return as originally programmed (by the user) after the camera is restarted.This Canon convention seems to make much more sense to me than having on-the-fly changes to custom settings become the default from that point on.Anyone who actually used this camera know? Thanks

1. Decent microphone input, some kind of breakout with XLR connectors would probably have been welcomed by some.

2. USB3, with USB2 you're struggling to get over 20MB/s, of course the Ethernet port somewhat mitigates that but it's complicated to use and only really suited to studio setups. USB is good for photographers that like to go and shoot for a client and then just dump all the photos straight onto the clients computer. No messing with a card reader.

Also I think it should have been possible to design the new camera to take both the old battery and the new one.

All in all it'll be interesting to see how much of this gets filtered down to the D300 replacement when it eventually arrives.

There seems to be some unwritten law that high-end cameras must have rotten on-board mics, and that the hot shoe must be used for a mic or flash, but not both. If advanced cameras allow for multiple lenses, why not have jacks for an assortment of mini-shotguns, etc? Too logical? Or is the target buyer focused and entirely on the visuals and considers audio to be irrelevant or someone else's gig?

The absence of USB-3 ports on virtually any camera mystifies me too, but the battery obsolescence factor is an old ploy of the business game.

Good idea, but having recorded sound professionally for years I would immediately argue that few want their sound directly coupled to the video. I'd go with a dedicated solid state multi-track recorder any day. The sound editors back in the studio seem to want the same, but who knows how things will change in the future.

2. Recording time code would be better. Who wants XLR connectors on a DSLR? Just how much weight & bulk do people want in a DSLR? The only experienced video users (rather than newcomers) who want to record sound as heard from the camera are ENG users, and DSLRs are certainly not suitable for that role.

Better to record sound remotely and either sync it with T/C (I wonder if the ext. GPS clock syncing will be good enough for T/C generation?) or send it to the camera by UHF link.

All professional video camcorder use INTERNAL SOUND RECORDING, not external. But if your camera cannot allow for that in a good enough quality, then you have no choice but to use external recorders and sync up sound to picture later. Usually adds another person to the shooting crew, and not the fastest idea for time-sensitive video clips, such as what the news shooters face.

I am not sure about the SMPTE TC generation capability of the D4, however. Anybody seen any mention of that? The Canon EOS 1D X supposedly has that. Phew, the plot thickens, definitely.

Another great camera on paper. Like the canon 1DX its an improvement but i think a lot of pros will not upgrade from the D3s, like canon shooters won't upgrade from the 1D MKIV Both canon and nikons new models will be better than what they replace but unless you are shooting on the edge the upgrade is not worth it. For me (1D MKIV shooter) iso 3200 and ten PSP are more than enough for 99.99% of my shooting.

It looks nice overall, and I love Nikon d-SLRs. However, why do SLR makers still limit you on the number of CROSS-SENSITIVE autofocus sensors? On a camera of this level, every single AF sensor should be cross-sensitive. Heck, even the D3100 should have ALL of them cross-sensitive, just fewer of them (even if it means having, say, only 7 or 9 of them vs 11). The layout as is means you are STILL often-times compelled to "focus & recompose" because only the central ones are cross-sensitive.

And a "multi-media" SLR? I know it's been 3 1/2 years since the D90 ushered all of this in, and arguably I'm "beating the horse to death" or whatever, but SLRs should focus on photos, period. I know pros are often-times now asked to include video clips with their images, but that's a silly expectation. I don't expect my plumber to know how to fix my car, or the Mexican eatery down the road to learn how to cook a good hamburger.

I agree with you...hardly any pro will be shooting video with a DSLR...instead they will purchase a proper video camera..to do their video shooting, which will be done most likely, by someone else in their crew...

Photographers may not be too interested in video, but some (or many?) pro film-makers are using DSLRs when high quality full-HD is what they need (famous example is the Dr House series filmed with Canon 5D Mk2). For full HD TV (1080p), some DSLRs give fabulous quality (as good or better than pro video cameras), and a new market has emerged.

"hardly any pro will be shooting video with a DSLR...instead they will purchase a proper video camera..to do their video shooting, which will be done most likely, by someone else in their crew."

Here is the problem with that. A "good" video camcorder will set you back up to US$60,000, and the maximum sensor size that a heavy, pro-class, shoulder-mounted camcorder has is 2/3-inch.

I don't know about you, but I would rather shoot video to a 36x24mm sized sensor with a $6,000 camera, than to an 8.8x6.6mm sensor (i.e. 2/3-inch) using a $20,000 to $60,000 price dedicated video camera.

Not true, I know a lot of pros who are branching out into video with their DSLRs. For every photographer like you, there is another that does want video. The last thing I shot with a D3s I used the (really bad) video. I wished I had the higher quality that the D4 delivers. If you can have two for one, of course they are going to add it. Don't just extrapolate from yourself. My work is about 50/50 video/stills these days.

Oh dear oh dear. I can never understand people who look at cameras as more than just a tool to use and create great pictures. Most cameras help you do this but some help the process more than other models do.Yes,yes I hear you say we know this but just look at the moaning brigade on here. " it only shoots at 10 frames per sec" I know, terrible, shoot the boffins at Nikon for getting it wrong. " they forgot to put GPS on it" again. how absolutely shocking is that, well maybe some people need GPS at the end of the day who cares.For all its wizz bangs this is a box, put a good lens on it and see what YOU are capable of.This is a pro tool out of the reach of most of us but even if you could afford one then make sure it makes money for you if not then you're either too rich or you think spending that kind of money will make you a better photographer.

For the " hang it from my shoulder just to look good brigade" then good luck when they ask you to show them some of your pics.

Thanks for putting it all into perspective for those people that believe the camera makes the photographer.The last time I checked, WE users are the ones that are paid and remembered for the shots we take, not the camera manufacturers.GREAT POST!!!

Excellent post "Tmurph". I guess the camera industry needs the "gear worshippers" ( of any brand) to keep the manufacturing belt rolling to a certain extend. According to these people photography starts every time a new model hits the shelves and before then photography sucked a big way. None of those film era guys with their manual everything cameras existed or what they achieved was 99% a "fluke". Well probably when an "artist" have nothing to say, no stories to tell through their chosen art they will either blame their tools or blame the public for not understanding them.

In defense of the critics and quibblers, they are referring to a very premium camera with premium price to boot, so why not fuss over it? Meanwhile, you are right that a top camera does not assure top pictures, and one can do pretty well with a medley of old gear and <$1k.

With all due respect, if the camera industry (which doesn't have all that much to do with photography, sorry) had to depend on actual professionals, who make enough from taking photos to buy stuff like this, there wouldn't be cameras like this. Next time you get a bill for a hospital stay or for legal fees, look on the bright side; you're subsiziing the demand for high-end cameras and lenses (and Aston-Martins, Learjets and so on).

Lovely clichés...P.S. where can I join the "hang it from my shoulder just to look good brigade", who are they, how did they form, I thought they were just a figment of the imagination of those who can't afford one, but must be wrong...

Great post tmurph. Glad to see the technology advancing more at a snails pace - I love my D3s and will hang on and use it for a bit longer while investing in better glass. Like with Apple, I founf its best to buy smart, then hang onto it and use it fir what its worth and only then replace it when obsolensence requires it. I still get wonderful images out of my D70, which was 'stake in the ground' cutting edge just 8 short years ago, and hope to do the same with the D3s for years to come. My next will probably be a D5s at the rate I'm going and the switch will come more because of battery and memory card issues LOL... Let the Nikon fanboi's drool and the haters hate over the new stuff as its fun to watch..

WrongDust reduction. Of course, as an interchangeable-lens camera, the lens mount itself is a potential entry-point for dust, and the D4 includes a dust removal function achieved using vibration of the optical low-pass filter. The Nikon D4 can also capture a reference image which determines the location of dust on the image sensor, and can be used to retouch photos to remove this dust, using Nikon's optional Capture NX 2 software.

Question: What does the connector on the XQD card look like? Does it still use pins in the camera that can be bent like compactflash? I find it strange that *none* of the pictures I could find of the XQD card show the connector end.

D4 layout? No thanks. Even Sony realized, that more external controls is good thing (NEX-7 layout). Yes they made few mistakes (like that those dials need LOCK and they dont have it :D), but idea itself was good.

If they create A99 with layout similar to A900 (or same) then good luck with D4 Nikon. Btw. that 16 mpix will be used in one of Sony future FF.

The D4 seems like it will be another solid, reliable workhorse for the professional sports and news photographer. I'm not concerned with the MP count - I recently heard Nikon shooter Bill "Moose" Peterson speak and he poo poo'ed the MP wars. (Sharp guy, great photographer.)

For me, I'm hoping this new camera will bring all of the lightly-used D3 bodies in doctors' and dentists' camera bags to the used market! I would like to score a like-new D3 for less than the price of a D700.

The real fun will be next year's Super Bowl. How many pro shooters snapping with the new Canon vs the new Nikon !

The new Sony products are planned to be available in February and are estimated to sell at the following retail prices: •QD-H16 card, 16 GB, $129.99 •QD-H32 card, 32 GB, $229.99 •Card Reader, MRW-E80, $44.99 •ExpressCard Adapter, QDA-EX1, $44.99

Not very surprising and innovative enough. If Steve Jobs was still alive, he would have mocked Nikon D4 and Canon 1DX engineers. He would have made Apple to innovate their own DSLR with built in mp3 player, touch LED screen, 3.5G capable (sounds like iPhone). Bwahahahaha

I think Nikon and Canon did not introduced much changes and competition in their flagship DSLRs so as not to loose their market in the professional photographers arena. Professional photographers don't worry themselves much with the camera specs, but rather with their crafts. It's the prosumer photographers that worry too much about the camera specs, the pixel peepers and mongers. Nyahahaha

um, when has apple ever put in anything extra into their products than what they speficically think you should want.

for example, why didn't the ipods ever have an FM radio? Why isn't the iphon 4s 4G capable? Why doesn't the ipad have a built in USB port... or better yet an SD port for expansion?

I thought it was pretty well known that apple puts just what they want into their devices, nothing more. Often times it's not what the consumer wants, but because it's an apple product, consumers will bend their desires and justify the purchase.

This is coming from a long time ipod and iphone owner.

So no, apple wouldn't put in 3.5G or an mp3 player into their camera. Instead, they will put in a moderately decent compact camera into their fragile iphone and call it a day.

Also if it was apple, the lens' mount would be changing every 5 years with no respect for backwards compatibility.

No, I'm happy with what Nikon and Canon are doing with these top end cameras.

Never understood the stealth nature of these camera announcements. There is nothing innovative here but just improvements over earlier models. It might still be a good camera but who would steal the exterior design of Nikon :-)

There is so much confusion over this camera, it's a flag ship camera for full time pros ONLY! No one should be thinking about a camera like this unless they are stinky rich or shoot full time. GPS? seriously?

I work as a photographer doing dance, theatre and nightclub shoots.1) Being able to produce clean shots in low light theatres and can push up the shutter speed will be a massive advantage.2) The illumination on the buttons was something i wanted working in low light.3) Not sure about the focus selector (i think) moved to the top. May not be as convenient as on the D3s location. 4) hope XQD CARD READER become avaiable soon.5) 10 fps is enough to track dancers and freeze the position i want. Getting sharp pics will be awesome.6) Will slight change in angle of shutter release get rid of my callous on the inside of my thumb!7) read somewhere there is gel under the screen to reduce fogging - .8) USB3 would have been nice for quicker downloads of large data9) cost - this is a working camera, should easily pay for itself 10) For my type of work, this camera is an awesome workhorse! 11) D4 benefits every nikon user as the technology will trickle down to the other models.

Hey guy’s I’ve been reading your comments on this Camera. It seems there are quite a few of you are disappointed about the D4. It seems to be on the basis of Image Resolution and FPS. Think about what the pros want i.e. the journalists and sports photographers. If I was one, then I would certainly welcome the increased sensitivity to capture images at low light and low resolution… Imagine being abroad in a war zone, the last thing you’re thinking about is sharpness and image details – it’s all about capturing the story. Also, think about uploading a 26 megapixel vs. 16 megapixel image via satellite or 3g connection. It could mean an extra minute to transfer, and if your sports or news shot isn’t sent to the editor on time without hassle – its money lost. This camera makes sense to the pros not us hobbyist.The camera is more focused about the work flow and post productivity that allow photographers who work in fast paced environments. How many of you were willing to spend £4.5k anyway.

Taikonaut: You have to wait and see which camera gives the most from a practical standpoint. I do like the fact that 14 fps can be had with the 1Dx- which is great for shooting dance and action fashion from tripod where the subject is in "action" but over a specified point. 10-12fps I find wonderful no matter what camera it comes from- but am more concerned about the depth of the buffer!

There is no way on the planet that the 1Dx is 2 stops better than the D3s let alone D4, so I think you must've meant 2 fps? or are you talking about the iso range that few people ever even think of using for actual work?

The differences between these two cameras are so minor from what I can tell at this point, that it comes down to what's more important for your specific photography. The D4 by specs alone, is hardly a "let down" for most photographers who are actually in the market for a new pro body.

Yeah. I would prefer the metering switch and focus selector switches from the last gen on the back as well.I use the AE-L/AF-L button a lot to manually turn off the flash. Losing that would take some getting used to.

AE-L/AF-L can be assigned to the center button of the small jog buttons for landscape and portrait orientation. The AF mode switch as been changed to be a button to work with the command wheels. That is the same system used on the D7000 and has been very effective since having the wheels control selection, all camera settings can be saved and recalled in the U1, U2, etc exposure selector. Before, with a fixed mechanical switch, that was not possible, nor was it possible to add more options than the 3. It is a good move for several reasons, speed of making full changes of mode, FP count etc at the same time without moving hand position. It works very well on the D7000.

All new camera models are likely to include video; it's relatively cheap to include. And video cameras take stills too. So I guess you will never, ever, buy a new camera again.

Actually, I used to feel like this; I rejected the D90 when it came out for the very same reason, but enventually bought one. But I did find it useful for video/audio notes, and particularly for recording location information.

Well, considering cameras like the 5dII are now being professionally used to shoot some of the biggest TV shows and movies in the world, it would make sense a but to expand the audience into people who would do videography.

Video isn't all that cheap to include, especially 1080P at 60fps. A lot of work goes into the implementation of video. I'd like to see Nikon produce a D4 variant without any video at all and with a correspondingly lower price. I suspect they'd drop the video model when they see how few people are willing to pay extra for it. Personally I don't want it and I never use it. And it seems that a lot of others agree.

Can the lock lever be programmed to lock out the dials as well, in order to provide the same functionality the old and now gone lock-button has? If not and if the dials aren't sufficient stiffly sprung to prevent accidential change, it is a bit hard for me to accept this as a professional camera at all. If yes: Great news! The same for any future Nikon and a corresponding firmware update for my D7000 pretty please!!!

I've been shooting a D3s for two years now and I thought Nikon would be hard-pressed to top it. Looks like they came up with another winner. The only thing I'd watch for is noise levels with the higher MP count. I'll be looking forward to the review and samples.

Sorry Harold1968 I think your comments are premature. Shall we wait for some proper test results before we condemn the D4.

Nikon will have done their market research, the days of "this is what we've built for you" are long gone. These days they listen to customer feedback and they wouldn't be launching a product that nobody wanted or one with inferior performance.

sorry, 16mp on a professional camera does not cut itCanon and Nikon are like supertankers. They have heard photographers demanding better quality higher ISO for years so now have both delivered low pixel cameras for their flagships.Many of us most shoot at base, or just above, ISO and want maximum detail.Are we now being pushed to medium format ?I hope Canon and Nikon have high pixel flagships up their sleeves.

So why dont you buy a D3X? 24MP! The D4 is aimed at press/sports/wildlife photographers.I prefer to have the hi ISO capabilities as it suits my work needs.The D3X is the studio/landscape camera for low ISO quality.

Two points: firstly, the size of the file matters less than the quality of information in it, so MP comparisons are largely moot and inconclusive. Update your approach: it's not like comparing Velvia to RDP.

Secondly: if you're working professionally, then you shouldn't be comparing a £5K camera to a £20K. Sub-point: we should stop feeding the MP/equipment wars which are simply crushing us financially.

Clients aren't paying more for more information, therefore we either need to start charging more for file creation above (I suggest 35mb-A3) and I suggest that the spec of this camera is poised at the edge of financially viable for a typical pro on a typical job. You can, after all, shoot a billboard with a D3/D4 EOS1, so...

Well stated "Masterof..". I get 'killer' event pics in low light with the D3s. Great concert coverage, sports event camera! So I come from the opposite direction - Why on earth do I need to trade up for the few mps when clients are happy with what i present? If your shooting for Playboy then get the Canon and the 85mm f1.2 so you can blow the photo up to billboard size. Its not in my strategy...

Yet another brilliant too little MP comment. I am happy my productivity in processing without burden of overly high MP. I need RAW versions of different MP sizes like what Canon does. That to me is what I want. Some events like birthdays and shooting for friends don't require anything more than 10MP-it's only for FB or 10R pics at the most. Spending time touching up & saving files & making backups is a bore & productivity downer for typical 1K amount of pics event shooting. Wake up Nikon!